Who actually decides who or what is a hero? Heroes are needed, after all, the choice of who is one partly determines a (national) identity. It does not have to be definitive: anyone standing on a plinth can just as easily be pulled off again. In 2022, no one assumes that heroes are infallible.
The Verzetsmuseum Amsterdam, which opened its doors last week with a new display, decided not to use the word hero anymore because no one is just a hero. The main reason put forward by the museum is that members of the resistance (and surviving relatives) themselves preferred not to be characterized as such. And it is sympathetic to take into account the people around whom a museum revolves. On the other hand, it is not a relevant argument: it is not for the hero himself to determine whether he/she is a hero, but for the viewer. Moreover, by emphatically moving away from that term, a suggestion of equilibrium has been created that has not gone down well everywhere.
Did the Resistance Museum consider in advance what reactions the choice would evoke? A historian and a journalist in NRC saw a biased relativity. EW columnist Zihni Özdil wondered whether Hitler could no longer be called a ‘scoundrel’. On social media, the level was lower and became Hannie Shaft associated with Zwarte Piet. The list shows a sliding scale in arguments against the choice that the museum could have seen coming, especially at a time when discussions are eagerly drawn into the sphere of cultural relativism and identity.
Read also: In resistance against the German occupation as a person or a hero?
It also feels uncomfortable eighty years later to put into perspective the actions of people who did dare to make a choice against Nazism when so many collaborated. As said, the word hero has been subject to inflation for a long time. Gunboat commander Jan van Speijk was once bombarded as a hero to give the Dutch identity a face, now every football player who wins is a hero. A hero is created and used for purposes as it suits us.
It is understandable that the Resistance Museum opted for this line of reasoning, but it also bears witness to a certain social deafness. Because the museum never puts the actions of resistance fighters into perspective. On the contrary: by making them more human, the choices and considerations they made become more heroic. Join the resistance, knowing that torture or death may be your fate while you have seven children and a wife at home; it makes the choice more difficult.
Not only a portrait of Hannie Schaft is shown, but also her glasses, hair dye and a photo of the dunes where she was executed just before the Liberation. There is also a photo of the SD man Emil Rühl, the man who interrogated her and sentenced her to death. It makes Schaft’s history more complete, precisely because the visitor also sees who sent her to her death. But why should you no longer be able to call Schaft a hero?
It is actually a missed opportunity: the Resistance Museum has humanized the ‘resistance heroes’, making them more of a hero. It would have been better to bring that out instead of emphasizing the word hero and the relativization of that term. Now the resistance fighters of that time are dragged into identity discussions, and they certainly did not ask for it.
A version of this article also appeared in the December 6, 2022 newspaper